1Static99-R What Does It Measure Out

8/2/2019 1Static99-R What Does It Measure Out

1/84

Static99-R

What Does It Measure

The Impact of Differential Reporting


2/84

Why New Norms?

1960 1990

Increase in Crime


3/84

The Great Decline

1991 2000

Crime decreased


4/84

Decline in Violent Crime

2000 Lowest in 20 years

(Butts & Travis, 2002)


5/84

Decline in Crime 2008

Violent Crime

1999-2008

Decreased 41%


6/84


Property Crime

1999-2008

Decreased 32%


7/84


Decline in Rape & Sexual Assault

1999-2008

53%


8/84

Decrease in Violent Crime(Crime in the United States,

FBI, 2009)

Year Population ViolentCrime

1990 249,464,396 1,820,127

2000 281,421,906 1,425,044

2009 307,006,550 1,316,398


9/84

Decrease in Rape(Crime in the United States,

FBI, 2009)

Year ForcibleRape/

100,000

1990 41.1

2000 32

2009 28.7


10/84

Base Rates Matter

Lower base rates

Fewer

Reoffenders for each score


11/84

Problems with Renorming

Appeared Unstable

Impact of Constant Change

On

Legal Arena


12/84

Multiple Norms

Routine Sex Offenders (CSC)

Treatment Samples

Nonroutine Samples

High Risk Samples


13/84

Which Subnorms to Use?

Correctional Services of Canada

Routine Cases

N = 2406

No screening procedures

No pre-selection for tx, or civil commitment


14/84

High Risk CSC

700 to 1000 hours of treatment

200-250 hours of cognitive skills & AODA

After release, ongoing maintenance


15/84

Which To Use?

Preselected for Treatment

Referred for sex offender specific treatmentduring current or prior incarceration

Selected but on waiting list still selected


16/84

Which Norms to Use

High Risk Sample

Preselected for risk

Factors external to Static-99

SVP referral, mentally disordered, not guilty byreason of insanity, referred for intensive

treatment


17/84

Non-routine

Treatment sample

High risk samples

Preselected for other reasons, e.g.,

offense severity


18/84

Norms

Most cases will use routine correctional

sample


19/84

New Norms 10 Years

Score Routine CSC TreatmentNeed

High Risk

-3 1.8 3.2

-2 2.4 4.2

-1 3.3 5.4 9.8

0 4.4 7 12.5

1 5.7 9 15.7

2 7.6 11.5 19.7

3 10 14.5 24.3

4 13 18.2 29.6

5 16.9 22.6 35.56 21.7 27.6 41.9

7 27.8 33.3 48.6

8 35 39.6 55.3

9 43.3 46.2 61.9

10 68


20/84

More Likely Than Not

(a) 5 yr rates are about 50% of long-term (21+ yr rates)

(b) 10 yr rates are about 70% of long-term (21+ yr) rates


21/84

Recidivism Rates

FU in Years Rates %

4-5 13.4

Hanson & Bussiere (1998)

5 14

10 2015 24

Harrison & Hanson, 2004


22/84

Recidivism Rates

Years

5 10 15

Rapists 14 21 24Incest 6 9 13

Girl Victim CM 9 13 16

Boy Victim CM 23 28 35(Harrison & Hanson, 2004)


23/84

Recidivism Rates

Years

5 10 15

No priors 10 15 19Any priors 25 32 37

(Harrison & Hanson, 2004)

N N 10 Y


24/84

New Norms 10 Years

Score Routine CSC TreatmentNeed

High Risk

-3 1.8 3.2

-2 2.4 4.2

-1 3.3 5.4 9.8

0 4.4 7 12.5

1 5.7 9 15.7

2 7.6 11.5 19.7

3 10 14.5 24.3

4 13 18.2 29.6

5 16.9 22.6 35.56 21.7 27.6 41.9

7 27.8 33.3 48.6

8 35 39.6 55.3

9 43.3 46.2 61.9

10 68


25/84

Which norms?

2008?

2009?

Static 99 or Static99-R

2002?

2002-R?

Combined norms?

Low-risk norms?

Treatment norms?

Non-routine?

High risk norms?


26/84

Increasing Importance ofDynamic Factors

Growing distrust of Static99

Not sensitive to treatment

Same Static99 score; different dynamic =different recidivism rates


27/84

Static + Dynamic

Static99R 3 yearRecidivism

5 yearRecidivism

Stable

5 14

Routine High Risk

2 3% 7% 5% 12%

5 7% 18% 11% 25%

7 14% 32% 19% 38%


28/84

Increased Dynamic Factors

Even with a high static score, the examinermust still find evidence of negativedynamic factors outside Static 99 to infer

high risk.

(Thornton et al., 2010)


29/84

Opposite?

Opposite is also true

Those with lower static scores

May be high risk

If dynamic factors outside Static99Are high


30/84

SRA

Sexual Interests

Relational Style

Lack of Emotionally Intimate Relationshipswith Adults (LEIRA)

Emotional Identification with children

Self-Management

(Not Distorted Attitudes)


31/84

OdditiesMan with 6 convictions for sex with 13-year-olds

Sexual interest in children 0 12 females

0 14 boys

Sexual preoccupation 16 and up

Sex with 13-year-olds neither abnormal or normal

Free ride on 13-year-ols


32/84

Bigger Samples?

High Risk Norms

N = 9,261

70% lost to FU at 10 yearsLeaving 2,766

High Risk Norms1, 120

Original Sample = 1086

(Merrick, 2010)


33/84

More Recent Samples?

High Risk Norms

1, 12010 years

68% released before 1990(Merrick, 2010)


34/84

Elephant in the Room

Static99, Static99-R, Static 2002 & Static2002R

Do not measure reoffending

Measure getting caught


35/84

Proxy for Reoffending

Convictions Offenses

1 3?

1 50?

1 150?


36/84

Higher Convictions

Should =

Higher Number of Offenses

If Underlying Assumptions are Met


37/84

Underlying Assumptions

Everybody gets caught who keepsoffending (eventually)

Everybody has an equal chance of gettingcaught


38/84

10 Retrospective Studies

Revealed abuse to anyone as children

1/3

Cases reported to authorities

10% - 18%

(London et al., 2005)

f


39/84

Delayed Disclosure ofChildhood Rape

N = 388

W/in 24 hours 18%

> 5 years 47%

Never before survey 28%

(Smith et al., 2000)


40/84

Bring in the But . . .

What If . . .

Victims Disclose Different Types ofOffenders Differentially


41/84

When Did Child Rarely Disclose

Natural Parent

Immediately 17%

Later 30%

Never 55%


42/84

Short Vs. Long Delays

Short Long

Strangers 22% 5%

Related to Victim 24% 48%



43/84

Family Members as Perps

Lower rates or

Longer delays

(Goodman-Brown, et al., 2003; Hershkowitzet al., 2005; Sjoberg & Lindblad, 2002;

Smith et al., 2000)


44/84

Who Did Child Disclose To?

Parent or Parent Figure 55%

Other Adult Relative/Friend 10%

Sibling 8%

Other Child 8%

School 8%

Mental Health/Medical 6%(Sauzier, 1989)


45/84

Whom They Told

Best Friend 23%

Mother 21%

No one 28%



46/84

Recantation

217 substantiated cases

Los Angeles Dependency Court

1999-2000Ages 2 17

90% female


47/84

Recantations

Recantations

23%

Minimizing severity

Additional 11%


48/84

Recantation

Predictors

Lack of maternal support

Abuse by male caretaker


49/84

Recantation

Cases where offender confessed

24.5% recanted fully or partially

(Malloy, Lyon, Quas, & Forman, 2005)


50/84

Differential Disclosure

Incest


51/84

Age

Adolescents abused for the first time asadolescents more likely to disclose thanyounger children

Disclose first to another adolescent

(Olafson & Lederman, 2006)


52/84

Age of Victims

Men with adolescent victims

More likely to get caught?


53/84

Instructions Not to Tell

Powerful effect on 5 and 6-year-olds

(Bottoms, et al., 2002; Pipe & Wilson, 1994)


54/84

Abused and Neglected Children

Mother beat preschooler children

Unconscious multiple times

I gave you life; I can damn well take it away.

Amphetamine addict

Molested by other siblings and mothersboyfriends


55/84

Skillful Offenders

Fool parents disclosures ignored

Make children love them


56/84

Children Who Deny

Less likely to disclose the closer therelationship

(DiPetro et al., 1997; Smith et al., 2000)


57/84

John

1250 molestations

Over 20 years

Multiple disclosures to parents

Over the years

One referral to police


58/84

Protection by Environment

Convictions Prior

Sex Convic

Joe

Church Protection

200 victims 0 0

Jim

No Church Protection

200 victims 5 3

Joe Jim


59/84

Church Protected Not Protected

1. Age (39) 0 0

2. Lived/lover 1 1

3. Prior assault 0 0

4. Prior sex conv. 0 3

5. Index assault 0 0

6. Sentencing 0 1

7. Noncontact 0 0

8. Unrelated 1 19. Stranger 0 0

10. Boy 1 1

Score 3 7


60/84

Offending

Fewer consequences Less likely to offend?


61/84

Is Static9-R Correct?

Yes

The non-church protected offender

Is

More likely to get caught.


62/84

Age


63/84

Aging and Psychopaths


64/84

Psychopathy and Age

Age Period

16-

20

21-

25

26-

30

31-

35

36-

40

41-

45

46-

50

51-

55

56-

70

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

MeanFacto

rScore

Factor 1

Factor 2

PCL-R

N = 800+

Harpur & Hare

1994


65/84

Before & After Age 40

Male Offenders & Forensic PsychiatricPatients

File Info File Info

+ Interview Alone

Total Decrease .5 Decrease 4

Factor 1 Increase .5 Decrease .5

Factor 2 Decrease 1 Decrease 4

(Hare, 2003)

Reduction in Criminality with


66/84

Reduction in Criminality withAge

1/2 Reduce Criminal Activity

About 35 to 40

Not for Violent Crime

(Hare, McPherson & Forth, 1988; Harris,Rice & Cormier, 1991)


67/84

Ages 46 - 50

% Any % Violent

Conviction Conviction

Psychopaths 42.9% 30%

Nonpsychopaths 40.4% 8.8%

(Hare et. Al, 1992)


68/84

Psychopathy & Aging

Almost of psychopaths convicted ofcrimes after 40

Percentage of violent crimes increased

(Hare et al., 1992)


69/84

It appears that the psychopaths propensity for

violence and aggression may be relativelypersistent across much of the life span.

(Hare, 1992, p.295)

Days Free on Conditional Release as


70/84

Days Free on Conditional Release asa Function of PCL-R & Age

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

18-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49

Non-psychopaths

Psychopaths

Porter et al., 2001

Age

Mean#SuccessfulDays

N = 224

N = 93

Older Psychopaths & Time in


71/84

Older Psychopaths & Time inCommunity

Age < 30 >30

40 44 1000 days 200 days

45 49 2500 days 100 days

(Porter et al., 2001)


72/84

We found no evidence that older offenders

scoring high on the PCL-R were moresuccessful than their younger

counterparts.(Porter et al., 2001)


73/84

Clearly, older psychopaths had far lessopportunity to offend . . . This suggeststhat the age-related decline in criminal

charges and convictions for psychopathswas, in part, an artifact, and that thecriminal (and violent) propensities of theaging psychopaths may have been greatly

underestimated.(Hare, 2003, p. 62)


74/84

New Age Item

Age Score

18 34.9 1

35 39.9 0

40 59.9 -1

60 + -3


75/84

Score Range

-3 to 12


76/84

Risk Categories

Score Risk Category-3 through 1 Low

2,3 Low-Moderate

4,5 Moderate-High

6+ High

Static99 Vs Static99-R


77/84

Static99 Vs Static99 RN = 2392

ROC10 years

Static99 .706

Static99-R .710

N Hi h Ri k A i S Off d ?


78/84

No High Risk Aging Sex Offenders?


79/84

Age 61

Attacked 73-year-old woman

Giving him a church tour

Stranger assault

M J h


80/84

Mr. Johnson

Age Offense History

29 Has a history of sexualassault

46 Attempted molestation of

11-year-old

M J h


81/84

Mr. Johnson

Age Offense History

48 Violent rape of 17-year-old

boy beat with chain

58 Molestation 6 yr old boy

59.5 Exposure to officer

Wh t O id ?


82/84

When to Over-ride?

Recent Offense within 5 years

History of continuous offending

No evidence of impact of aging

New Norms 10 Years


83/84

Score Routine 5 yrObserved

RoutineAdjusted

TreatmentNeed

High Risk

-3 1.4 1.8 3.2-2 1.8 2.4 4.2

-1 2.3 3.3 5.4 9.8

0 3 4.4 7 12.5

1 3.9 5.7 9 15.7

2 5.1 7.6 11.5 19.7

3 6.6 10 14.5 24.3

4 8.4 13 18.2 29.6

5 10.8 16.9 22.6 35.5

6 13.7 21.7 27.6 41.9

7 17.2 27.8 33.3 48.6

8 21.4 35 39.6 55.3

9 26.3 43.3 46.2 61.9

10 68

D O id H l ?


84/84

Do Over-rides Help?

Prediction of Recidivism (ROC)Recidivism Type Static-99 Static-99 +

Over-rideStatic-99 +

Stable- 2007

Sexual .77 .75 .81

Any violent .74 .71 .77

1Static99-R What Does It Measure Out

Documents